Activist Thunberg completes intercontinental dash to Madrid climate summit

[DannyCarlton]

4 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Only children believe the science is settled. Grownups know that the unknown and unmeasurable aspects of climate are vast. And there is not much more than observations and climate models to illuminate the subject. Both of which are subject to manipulation and interpretation. Generating statistics which can be read however you like if know the art.

 

Only "children" fail to accept that climate change is real and largely man made. Adults recognise it and want to contibute to it's slowing/reversal.

 

We can argue about the mechanics, we can argue about the best way forward but with the science to back it up, we can't argue about it's existence and it's incereasing effect on our planet.

 

I believe that the only way to effect real change is to have all world leaders on board. Only they can effect real and significant changes. 2 world leaders are stand outs in refusing to address the problem, probably the 2 who could make the biggest difference.

 

Trump is busy unpicking the US policy on climate change, leader of the nation that is traditionally the biggest contributor to global pollution. Why? Because he's heavily in hock to major oil producers who have the most to lose from putting in place effective measures to reduce climate change. Without that one individual on board, the rest of the world is just whistling in the wind in trying to effect change.

 

The other world leader who needs to come on board is Brazil's Bolsonaro, who is single handedly destroying the world's lungs, criminal damage on a global scale. Without a healthy set of lungs, the world can't hope to repair the damage already done. Why is he destroying the Amazonian rain forest? Pressure from major agricultural companies in Brazil and from his base, many of whom are farmers in Brazil.

 

What part has Greta Thunberg to play?  She's raising awareness. People talk about climate change more. She fuels the debate. Love her or hate her, you're all talking about her and what she says. Job done.

 

Her hope is that the aforementioned world leaders will buckle to increasing public pressure. Will they? Personally I doubt it, money is their god and they are completely devoid of any moral concience, but at least Greta is trying. She's not trying to develop the science or promote new ways of tackling climate change, she's just trying to win the hearts and minds of those who are in denial, increasing the pressure on those who seek to destroy our planet for financial gain. How can that be wrong?

[RickBradford]

19 minutes ago, sirineou said:

or do you think that in order they do something, it is better to stay home and do nothing?

Far better that they should stay home and do nothing rather than travel all the way to Madrid and do nothing.

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

  

12 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

  

20 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You guys are always making this ridiculous claim.

" If the activists were serious they would not take airplanes to go to the conferences." I really don't mean to be insulting but don't you realise how absurd that is?

How are they supposed to get there?? walk?  ride horses? take a rowboat? or do you think that in order they do something, it is better to stay home and do nothing?

Doesn't she walk on water?

Cute, but does not address what I said.

I'll address what you say then.  It's better they stay at home and do nothing.

[canuckamuck]

7 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Only "children" fail to accept that climate change is real and largely man made. Adults recognise it and want to contibute to it's slowing/reversal.

 

We can argue about the mechanics, we can argue about the best way forward but with the science to back it up, we can't argue about it's existence and it's incereasing effect on our planet.

 

I believe that the only way to effect real change is to have all world leaders on board. Only they can effect real and significant changes. 2 world leaders are stand outs in refusing to address the problem, probably the 2 who could make the biggest difference.

 

Trump is busy unpicking the US policy on climate change, leader of the nation that is traditionally the biggest contributor to global pollution. Why? Because he's heavily in hock to major oil producers who have the most to lose from putting in place effective measures to reduce climate change. Without that one individual on board, the rest of the world is just whistling in the wind in trying to effect change.

 

The other world leader who needs to come on board is Brazil's Bolsonaro, who is single handedly destroying the world's lungs, criminal damage on a global scale. Without a healthy set of lungs, the world can't hope to repair the damage already done. Why is he destroying the Amazonian rain forest? Pressure from major agricultural companies in Brazil and from his base, many of whom are farmers in Brazil.

 

What part has Greta Thunberg to play?  She's raising awareness. People talk about climate change more. She fuels the debate. Love her or hate her, you're all talking about her and what she says. Job done.

 

Her hope is that the aforementioned world leaders will buckle to increasing public pressure. Will they? Personally I doubt it, money is their god and they are completely devoid of any moral concience, but at least Greta is trying. She's not trying to develop the science or promote new ways of tackling climate change, she's just trying to win the hearts and minds of those who are in denial, increasing the pressure on those who seek to destroy our planet for financial gain. How can that be wrong?

All those words to simply parrot the claim the science is settled.

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll address what you say then.  It's better they stay at home and do nothing.

Better for you!! actually not even that.

[DannyCarlton]

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

All those words to simply parrot the claim the science is settled.

It is, to the extent that climate change is real and largely man made. As I said in my post, the science isn't settled on the exact mechanism or the difinitive solution. What is settled is that climate change is real and without intervention will cause major changes to the planet we live on in the not too distant future.

[Chazar]

I  hope she starts  walking everywhere in rattan shoes made  locally  not  imported from afar, its a joke just media krap

[Chazar]

1 minute ago, DannyCarlton said:

What is settled is that climate change is real

dont think anyone denies its real or  not, denying the rest  isa  godsend for raising tax for the countries who have run out of taxation methods

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, Chazar said:

dont think anyone denies its real or  not, denying the rest  isa  godsend for raising tax for the countries who have run out of taxation methods

One of the weakest climate change denier arguments I've ever heard. Well, at least Greta has got you thinking about it and talking about it. There's hope for you yet!

[Penicillin]

34 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll address what you say then.  It's better they stay at home and do nothing.

Or teleconference.

[canuckamuck]

21 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

It is, to the extent that climate change is real and largely man made. As I said in my post, the science isn't settled on the exact mechanism or the difinitive solution. What is settled is that climate change is real and without intervention will cause major changes to the planet we live on in the not too distant future.

Firstly, climate change is real. Well of course it is real no one is debating that point. It is impossible for the climate to the stay the same. That fact alone destroys your second point, which is, that it is largely man made. If it is impossible for the climate to stay the same, it is therefore irrefutable that climate change is not man made. It occurs with or without humans existing.

[DannyCarlton]

Just now, canuckamuck said:

Firstly, climate change is real. Well of course it is real no one is debating that point. It is impossible for the climate to the stay the same. That fact alone destroys your second point, which is, that it is largely man made. If it is impossible for the climate to stay the same, it is therefore irrefutable that climate change is not man made. It occurs with or without humans existing.

Not to the extent that it's currently changing. The science is clear that the climate change that we are now seeing is largely man made.

[canuckamuck]

25 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Not to the extent that it's currently changing. The science is clear that the climate change that we are now seeing is largely man made.

No it's not clear.

[DannyCarlton]

7 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

No it's not clear.

Oh yes it is! 555

[canuckamuck]

5 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Oh yes it is! 555

Show me

[Scott]

Toll post and replies removed.  

 

[kingdong]

14 hours ago, oldhippy said:

We soixante-huitards scared the old generation shiitless, and certainly not only by evil rock music.

Belgium?pity you didn,t scare the old generation enough to take in refugees from your colony the Congo when it kicked off in the 60 s.

[kingdong]

1 hour ago, ThaiBunny said:

Doesn't she walk on water?

Yes,without getting her feet wet,a day without greta is like a day without sunshine,without her I wouldn,t have a reason to get up in the morning.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

 

[Opl]

15 hours ago, Brigand said:

Extreme eco-warriors and fanatics of all causes often do more harm than good to their cause as the average person might agree to a certain extent but the freak-a-deek-a-dee-do factor is off-putting due to the fact that most people aren't lunatics. However, sadly now the only way to get attention is to shock or offend ... but that doesn't make you right, just makes you a nutjob.

Someone agrees with you, " Honestly, climate change is very important to me. I’ve done many environmental impact statements over my life and I believe very strongly in very, very crystal clear, clean water and clean air. That’s a big part of climate change" 

"People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once. They end up using more water. So, EPA is looking at that very strongly, at my suggestion," he said, referring to the Environmental Protection Agency.

[Thingamabob]

16 hours ago, oldhippy said:

Don't worry, saying such things is normal at your age.

50 years ago the old people said the same about me.

 

Lousy parents I reckon.

[fvw53]

16 hours ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

Like most eco extremists there is the wiff of puritanical misanthropy about her. 

At her age she is pumped up and guided by one her parents ...when does she go to school ...or will she go directly into politics?

[Thingamabob]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

No it's not clear.

I agree. It's far from clear.

 

First question is why is CO2 named the culprit ? We need as much of it as we can get. 

 

This is a really stupid exercise, personified by Emma Thompson, or whatever her name is, who has not the first idea of what she is rabbiting on about.

 

Sad and pathetic.

[RickBradford]

4 minutes ago, fvw53 said:

At her age she is pumped up and guided by one her parents ...when does she go to school ...or will she go directly into politics?

She's actually being manipulated by a couple of professional activists.

 

One is Jennifer Morgan, who has worked as an executive for Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the World Resources Institute, the US Climate Action Network, and a whole host of other environmental NGOs.

 

Her current chaperone is Luisa Neubauer, whose main affiliation is with Bill Gates' ONE foundation, an extremely well funded do-gooding organisation. Neubauer also consults with WWF and is a member of the Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations, whatever that may be.

 

I don't think Greta is going to be prominent for too long; she has some mental/emotional issues, and all this pressure may not be good for her in the long run. If so, they will junk her and get a new spokeschild, perhaps one from an ethnic minority.

[DannyCarlton]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Show me

This thread is about Greta Thunberg and her actions/ words on the subject of climate change. It's not about the science behind climate change. There have been several long running threads on that on TV. Thae previous Greta Thunberg thread devolved into a pissing match between the climate change believers and denyers until the too and fro was done to death. It's all been said and I'm not prepared to contribute to this thread going the same way.

 

Personally, I take a different tack to Greta, climate change can only be tackled by governments, not individuals. Pointless me taking one less flight and expecting it to have any effect on the climate. I'd just be pissing in the wind. what I do back greta on is keeping the debate live, bringing it to young people and collectively bringing it to certain world leaders in the vain hope of shaming them into making a real difference.

[DannyCarlton]

7 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

She's actually being manipulated by a couple of professional activists.

 

One is Jennifer Morgan, who has worked as an executive for Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the World Resources Institute, the US Climate Action Network, and a whole host of other environmental NGOs.

 

Her current chaperone is Luisa Neubauer, whose main affiliation is with Bill Gates' ONE foundation, an extremely well funded do-gooding organisation. Neubauer also consults with WWF and is a member of the Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations, whatever that may be.

 

I don't think Greta is going to be prominent for too long; she has some mental/emotional issues, and all this pressure may not be good for her in the long run. If so, they will junk her and get a new spokeschild, perhaps one from an ethnic minority.

I really don't see anything negative in your post. She's sponsored/guided by people who share her views. Isn't that the same for all politicians? The only reason you find it objectionable is that you don't share her views.

[RickBradford]

Just now, DannyCarlton said:

I really don't see anything negative in your post. She's sponsored/guided by people who share her views. Isn't that the same for all politicians? The only reason you find it objectionable is that you don't share her views.

I object strongly to these professional activists manipulating a vulnerable teenager, who has some considerable personal problems, purely as a pawn in the service of emotional blackmail to try and push their agenda on the world.

 

It is reprehensible.

[evadgib]

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

You guys are always making this ridiculous claim.

" If the activists were serious they would not take airplanes to go to the conferences." I really don't mean to be insulting but don't you realise how absurd that is?

How are they supposed to get there?? walk?  ride horses? take a rowboat? or do you think that in order they do something, it is better to stay home and do nothing?

How about appearing by video link from home... or school?

[DannyCarlton]

26 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I object strongly to these professional activists manipulating a vulnerable teenager, who has some considerable personal problems, purely as a pawn in the service of emotional blackmail to try and push their agenda on the world.

 

It is reprehensible.

It's equally reprehensible for a shadowy individual such as Dominic Cummings manipulating someone, who is clearly mentally retarded, for his own ends.

 

Greta Thunberg, due to her condition, which you don't appear to fully understand (it often affects highly intelligent, gifted people), was a withdrawn, isolated young girl, who rarely attended school until she found climate change. She guided her parents, they didn't guide her. She is now far less withdrawn to the point of being able to hold a large audience of world leaders with her speeches and has probably learned far more since taking up the cudgels than she did before.

 

Taking to the public stage has improved her condition immensly and her quality of life.

 

You may find this difficult to believe, not understanding her condition, but she primarily writes her own speeches and isn't in the habit of having "words put in her mouth".

 

 

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Only "children" fail to accept that climate change is real and largely man made. Adults recognise it and want to contibute to it's slowing/reversal.

 

We can argue about the mechanics, we can argue about the best way forward but with the science to back it up, we can't argue about it's existence and it's incereasing effect on our planet.

 

I believe that the only way to effect real change is to have all world leaders on board. Only they can effect real and significant changes. 2 world leaders are stand outs in refusing to address the problem, probably the 2 who could make the biggest difference.

 

Trump is busy unpicking the US policy on climate change, leader of the nation that is traditionally the biggest contributor to global pollution. Why? Because he's heavily in hock to major oil producers who have the most to lose from putting in place effective measures to reduce climate change. Without that one individual on board, the rest of the world is just whistling in the wind in trying to effect change.

 

The other world leader who needs to come on board is Brazil's Bolsonaro, who is single handedly destroying the world's lungs, criminal damage on a global scale. Without a healthy set of lungs, the world can't hope to repair the damage already done. Why is he destroying the Amazonian rain forest? Pressure from major agricultural companies in Brazil and from his base, many of whom are farmers in Brazil.

 

What part has Greta Thunberg to play?  She's raising awareness. People talk about climate change more. She fuels the debate. Love her or hate her, you're all talking about her and what she says. Job done.

 

Her hope is that the aforementioned world leaders will buckle to increasing public pressure. Will they? Personally I doubt it, money is their god and they are completely devoid of any moral concience, but at least Greta is trying. She's not trying to develop the science or promote new ways of tackling climate change, she's just trying to win the hearts and minds of those who are in denial, increasing the pressure on those who seek to destroy our planet for financial gain. How can that be wrong?

Climate alarmists keep insisting that the science is settled, as if the ad nauseam repetition of this fallacy will magically transform it into truth.  It won't.

 

What climate alarmists fail to admit is that their conclusions of doom and gloom are nothing more than theories.  A theory is comprised of observations and facts, all of which are assembled in a fashion to produce a theory.  It must be noted that the observations and facts can be assembled in not only one way but many ways.

 

In some circles scientific theories are considered established fact.  In these circles only the scientific field is granted an exception to conflate theory with fact.

 

https://ncse.ngo/theory-and-fact

 

From the article:

 

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true”. Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

 

The science is settled is a disingenuous, bogus claim that climate alarmists keep pushing down the throats of others whilst demanding that they believe!

 

The theory, and I repeat, the theory that CO2 is the one and only predominate cause of climate change is fact only for those who conflate theory with truth.  Don't expect those who refuse to make this mistake accept it only because others do, even as they demand others to do the same.

 

Of all of the factors which go into the creation of earth's climate claiming that CO2 is the predominant cause infers that scientists assume they are aware of them all and have determined that no other factors bear weight significant enough to play a meaningful or contributive role.  Really?  Are these scientists gods since they claim to have complete understanding of how the climate of the earth is created and maintained?

 

There are no controlled experiments that are able to be replicated to prove their theory.  And there never will be.  So we just have to take their word for it?

 

I'm not even touching on topics such as data, the range, what's included and what is not, by what means the data is collected and verified as to it's accuracy, the manipulation of data, the scientists involved and what their motivations and personal beliefs are, the financial aspects, the costs, who pays and by what means, where all of this money will flow to, to whom it will flow to, how the use of the money will be audited, how money will be siphoned off for individuals and other non related purposes, the effects of politics which will no doubt enter in, and endless other questions.